Lance616168 (talk | contribs) |
Drcrazy102 (talk | contribs) →WilliamThweatt: please provide specific change requests and use proper indentation |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:You may also benefit from reading [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]], and especially Wikipedia's policy regarding [[WP:BLP|writing about living persons]], the latter of which is taken very seriously and applies to all areas of Wikipedia, even talk pages.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
:You may also benefit from reading [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]], and especially Wikipedia's policy regarding [[WP:BLP|writing about living persons]], the latter of which is taken very seriously and applies to all areas of Wikipedia, even talk pages.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
Are you aware of the neutral point of view rule? This article is in violation of that rule by failing to not make this article as fairly as possible with a neutral tone by not including the details that are in violation of "undue weight." Let me state the rules from the neutral point of view. And i quote from Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, " Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." This article is in violation of that rule. To your statement that " all relevant details have been included', It would seem that not all "relevant" details have been included in this article. It is irrelevant if the status of the source is "mainstream or a minority" because a fact is a fact regardless of the status of the source as long as it's truthful and reliable. I would have to disagree with the ruling of "undue" weight. Details are the facts of the case. It is wrong to just cite/base and write an article with the information from a "mainstream" source which would mislead readers to ignorance of the "truth."[[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 08:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
::Are you aware of the neutral point of view rule? This article is in violation of that rule by failing to not make this article as fairly as possible with a neutral tone by not including the details that are in violation of "undue weight." Let me state the rules from the neutral point of view. And i quote from Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, " Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." This article is in violation of that rule. To your statement that " all relevant details have been included', It would seem that not all "relevant" details have been included in this article. It is irrelevant if the status of the source is "mainstream or a minority" because a fact is a fact regardless of the status of the source as long as it's truthful and reliable. I would have to disagree with the ruling of "undue" weight. Details are the facts of the case. It is wrong to just cite/base and write an article with the information from a "mainstream" source which would mislead readers to ignorance of the "truth."[[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 08:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
Also I quote from the neutral rules against undue weight, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ALL significant viewpoints need to be fairly represented in this article which it clearly is not by the lack of details in this article concerning how the shooter was treated by the victims and the aftermath. These are very important details that wasn't written in the article which I suggest needs to be. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 08:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
::Also I quote from the neutral rules against undue weight, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ALL significant viewpoints need to be fairly represented in this article which it clearly is not by the lack of details in this article concerning how the shooter was treated by the victims and the aftermath. These are very important details that wasn't written in the article which I suggest needs to be. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 08:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Please stop ranting. You keep complaining the article "isn't fair", but you haven't pointed to any specifics. That's not how this works. You obviously have an agenda of making excuses for this convicted murderer. Nobody is going to read your rants or pay any attention to them. If you have specific changes you would like made to the article, this is the place to bring them up along with reliable sources that support the changes you would like made. Then a discussion will be had based on context, objectivity, reliability of sources, etc. (not on your idea of "fairness" or your personal crusade). Keep in mind that claims which differ from the preponderance of mainstream reliable sources would need strong, peer reviewed, [[WP:RS|very reputable sources]], to even be considered. (Youtube, blogs, comment sections, personal commentaries etc. aren't reliable sources). Also things such as, for example a prosecutor's DUI or whether or not profanity was used, has no bearing on the subject of this article and is definitely neither an exculpatory excuse for murder nor evidence to support claims of an "unfair" trial. So don't expect such things to make it into the article.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::Please stop ranting. You keep complaining the article "isn't fair", but you haven't pointed to any specifics. That's not how this works. You obviously have an agenda of making excuses for this convicted murderer. Nobody is going to read your rants or pay any attention to them. If you have specific changes you would like made to the article, this is the place to bring them up along with reliable sources that support the changes you would like made. Then a discussion will be had based on context, objectivity, reliability of sources, etc. (not on your idea of "fairness" or your personal crusade). Keep in mind that claims which differ from the preponderance of mainstream reliable sources would need strong, peer reviewed, [[WP:RS|very reputable sources]], to even be considered. (Youtube, blogs, comment sections, personal commentaries etc. aren't reliable sources). Also things such as, for example a prosecutor's DUI or whether or not profanity was used, has no bearing on the subject of this article and is definitely neither an exculpatory excuse for murder nor evidence to support claims of an "unfair" trial. So don't expect such things to make it into the article.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
Here we go. You and your assumptions. You are assuming that i am making "excuses" for this Chai Vang. Glad to know how you can remain ignorant. I am truthfully speaking for the greater good of this article to make it have a neutral tone without bias. Why don't you read Wikipedia's rule or neutrality. You would benefit from it since you dont seem to understand Wikipedia rules. You can see in the talk page of this article, there are a couple of editors who also feel that this article is biased. I already have pointed to specifics of details that should be included and that this article should be rewritten to maintain a neutral point of view. For example: for the aftermath, Vang's home was burned down as a sort of retaliation and result of the shooting and signs were made to Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong. These are important details that need to be in this article because of it's significance and impact of this case. I am not excusing murder but I am not also excusing racism/bullying either. You seem to be acknowledging racism and bullying as long as it isn't murder which means you have an agenda of keeping this a misleading biased article. I suggest again, that you need to make the appropriate changes to this article. Your biased and racist colors are starting to show. As for Peg Lautenschlager, since her name was mentioned and part of her tactic questions were briefly mentioned in this article that had no bearing on the subject in this article, a brief history on the Attorney General is pretty relevant in this article. I bet you an apology that the majority of the community would agree that this article is biased with a blend of racism. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 02:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::Here we go. You and your assumptions. You are assuming that i am making "excuses" for this Chai Vang. Glad to know how you can remain ignorant. I am truthfully speaking for the greater good of this article to make it have a neutral tone without bias. Why don't you read Wikipedia's rule or neutrality. You would benefit from it since you dont seem to understand Wikipedia rules. You can see in the talk page of this article, there are a couple of editors who also feel that this article is biased. I already have pointed to specifics of details that should be included and that this article should be rewritten to maintain a neutral point of view. For example: for the aftermath, Vang's home was burned down as a sort of retaliation and result of the shooting and signs were made to Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong. These are important details that need to be in this article because of it's significance and impact of this case. I am not excusing murder but I am not also excusing racism/bullying either. You seem to be acknowledging racism and bullying as long as it isn't murder which means you have an agenda of keeping this a misleading biased article. I suggest again, that you need to make the appropriate changes to this article. Your biased and racist colors are starting to show. As for Peg Lautenschlager, since her name was mentioned and part of her tactic questions were briefly mentioned in this article that had no bearing on the subject in this article, a brief history on the Attorney General is pretty relevant in this article. I bet you an apology that the majority of the community would agree that this article is biased with a blend of racism. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 02:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Again, please stop ranting. And read [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]. I will ignore this one time and choose to believe you haven't read the policy and just don't know any better. Next time you will be reported and risk being blocked (losing editing privileges). Discuss the content, not editors. Only "notable" subjects get Wikipedia articles. (See [[Wikipedia:Notability]] for the definition of "notability" used in Wikipedia's context) The subject of the article is only notable because he killed people and was convicted of murder. He isn't notable because his house caught on fire, nor is he notable because a member of the prosecution team had a DUI. He isn't notable because of racism or bullying or whatever other excuse you can dream up. Those details are irrelevant to this article. Stop trying to race bait and bring race into everything. There is nothing misleading in this article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Suggest a specific change with strong supporting sources or move on.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::Again, please stop ranting. And read [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]. I will ignore this one time and choose to believe you haven't read the policy and just don't know any better. Next time you will be reported and risk being blocked (losing editing privileges). Discuss the content, not editors. Only "notable" subjects get Wikipedia articles. (See [[Wikipedia:Notability]] for the definition of "notability" used in Wikipedia's context) The subject of the article is only notable because he killed people and was convicted of murder. He isn't notable because his house caught on fire, nor is he notable because a member of the prosecution team had a DUI. He isn't notable because of racism or bullying or whatever other excuse you can dream up. Those details are irrelevant to this article. Stop trying to race bait and bring race into everything. There is nothing misleading in this article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Suggest a specific change with strong supporting sources or move on.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
Speaking of which.. I was attacked with your assumption of claims of having an "agenda" or to make excuses for this Chai Vang person and now with names such as race racebaiter dreaming of excuses. I suggest you to listen to yourself and learn not to personally attack me because you will be reported. But here's a response for you calling me a race baiter, take a look at the case. Race IS an issue in the case of Chai Vang. The fact that significant details were neglected just makes it bias and misleading because the readers aren't getting the correct information and that the article doesn't have a tone as fair as possible without bias from a neutral standpoint. For your information, not sure if you are aware of this but I have reported this article to the Neutral POV Noticeboard. Some have agreed that the appropiate changes needs to be made to this article. There are retrospective views that need to be included in the article in compliance with the neutral POV rule. [http://hmongstudies.org/HeinHSJ14.pdf][http://blogs.mprnews.org/state-of-the-arts/2010/11/five-years-after-killings-open-season-finds-anger-remains-on-all-sides/][http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130860575] The documentary should be considered for an external link per [[WP:ELMAYBE]] |
::::::Speaking of which.. I was attacked with your assumption of claims of having an "agenda" or to make excuses for this Chai Vang person and now with names such as race racebaiter dreaming of excuses. I suggest you to listen to yourself and learn not to personally attack me because you will be reported. But here's a response for you calling me a race baiter, take a look at the case. Race IS an issue in the case of Chai Vang. The fact that significant details were neglected just makes it bias and misleading because the readers aren't getting the correct information and that the article doesn't have a tone as fair as possible without bias from a neutral standpoint. For your information, not sure if you are aware of this but I have reported this article to the Neutral POV Noticeboard. Some have agreed that the appropiate changes needs to be made to this article. There are retrospective views that need to be included in the article in compliance with the neutral POV rule. [http://hmongstudies.org/HeinHSJ14.pdf][http://blogs.mprnews.org/state-of-the-arts/2010/11/five-years-after-killings-open-season-finds-anger-remains-on-all-sides/][http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130860575] The documentary should be considered for an external link per [[WP:ELMAYBE]] |
||
The overall tone is biased, so a rewrite of the article with a neutral POV can surely fix that. |
::::::The overall tone is biased, so a rewrite of the article with a neutral POV can surely fix that. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it so. There is nothing misleading in the article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Race is irrelevant. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on. This is a biographical article about a convicted murderer, not an exposition of race relations in the US. If you want to discuss racism we have appropriate articles such as [[Racism in the United States]]. In fact the [[Racism in the United States#Asian American]] subsection needs to be expanded and updated to include the experiences of Southeast Asians refugees. But race didn't cause this man to commit murder, nor did it cause him to be convicted. The fact that "racism" or "racist" things may have occurred tangential to the case is irrelevant to the scope of this biographical article.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it so. There is nothing misleading in the article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Race is irrelevant. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on. This is a biographical article about a convicted murderer, not an exposition of race relations in the US. If you want to discuss racism we have appropriate articles such as [[Racism in the United States]]. In fact the [[Racism in the United States#Asian American]] subsection needs to be expanded and updated to include the experiences of Southeast Asians refugees. But race didn't cause this man to commit murder, nor did it cause him to be convicted. The fact that "racism" or "racist" things may have occurred tangential to the case is irrelevant to the scope of this biographical article.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
"No matter how many times I say it." Well then, I'll keep saying it. "Significant" details of the shooting was left out making this a misleading biased article. Do you not understand that? You state that race is not relevant in this case however the fact is that Chai Vang was Hmong, the victims were White and that the victims called Vang slurs. Nothing you say can change those facts. The sources I referenced, most are from the news website itself. The facts are true so why don't you do some research on some of my suggestions to see if it is or not. Since it's true and the details are MAJOR, It cannot be left out of this case because it will make this article misleading and biased. Not only that, the article is in violation of the neutral POV which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. By your logic, since Chai Vang is a convicted murderer who killed 6 people in the woods , that is all we need to write in this article because it's " end of story " as stated by you. Let's REWRITE the article and all we need to write is, " Chai Vang, convicted murderer. Kills 6 Injured 2." Leave out the rest of the information concerning the case except Vang's background. However since this article wasn't written in that fashion, it is up to us as editors to provide the CORRECT details about the investigation, trial ect. Especially the correct SIGNIFICANT details. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::"No matter how many times I say it." Well then, I'll keep saying it. "Significant" details of the shooting was left out making this a misleading biased article. Do you not understand that? You state that race is not relevant in this case however the fact is that Chai Vang was Hmong, the victims were White and that the victims called Vang slurs. Nothing you say can change those facts. The sources I referenced, most are from the news website itself. The facts are true so why don't you do some research on some of my suggestions to see if it is or not. Since it's true and the details are MAJOR, It cannot be left out of this case because it will make this article misleading and biased. Not only that, the article is in violation of the neutral POV which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. By your logic, since Chai Vang is a convicted murderer who killed 6 people in the woods , that is all we need to write in this article because it's " end of story " as stated by you. Let's REWRITE the article and all we need to write is, " Chai Vang, convicted murderer. Kills 6 Injured 2." Leave out the rest of the information concerning the case except Vang's background. However since this article wasn't written in that fashion, it is up to us as editors to provide the CORRECT details about the investigation, trial ect. Especially the correct SIGNIFICANT details. [[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:So? The murderer and his victims were from different ethnic backgrounds, so what? I haven't denied that, in fact, it is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article already. Racial slurs may have been used in a tense situation. So what? Nothing really unique to this case about that. Sadly, it happens every day to people of every race and yet, the offended parties manage to not kill 6 people every time it does. Racial issues just aren't a "significant" detail in this murder case. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 09:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::::::So? The murderer and his victims were from different ethnic backgrounds, so what? I haven't denied that, in fact, it is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article already. Racial slurs may have been used in a tense situation. So what? Nothing really unique to this case about that. Sadly, it happens every day to people of every race and yet, the offended parties manage to not kill 6 people every time it does. Racial issues just aren't a "significant" detail in this murder case. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 09:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
Of course you haven't denied that the murderer and the victims had different ethnicity. What you are denying is that racial issues wasn't a "significant" factor in this case. What's unique about this case was that the victims decided to pursue the murderer with 8 people on ATV's to confront him again with hostility and who knows what other malicious intent, call him names also saying his race, threaten to beat him and then block the murderer from leaving when he tried to walk away. That is false imprisonment, assault, harassment, hate crime and attempt of assault to do great bodily harm. Don't you agree? If you think about it from Vang's point of view, you apologized for being on their land and just want to leave without any problems, then you have 8 people who just followed you on ATVs and confronted you again with hostility, they're angry and swearing at you calling you racial slurs, one of them just said that he was going to beat you up, and then you try to walk away but another person stepped in your way and blocked you from leaving. Also taking into account that you are smaller, surrounded in the woods and who knows how far from civilization. I'd bet that majority of the people would agree that the murderer was quite threatened. Seems that a case like this doesn't happen everyday contradicting your statement that this happens everyday to people of every race. Now, back to changes for the article. |
{{od}}Of course you haven't denied that the murderer and the victims had different ethnicity. What you are denying is that racial issues wasn't a "significant" factor in this case. What's unique about this case was that the victims decided to pursue the murderer with 8 people on ATV's to confront him again with hostility and who knows what other malicious intent, call him names also saying his race, threaten to beat him and then block the murderer from leaving when he tried to walk away. That is false imprisonment, assault, harassment, hate crime and attempt of assault to do great bodily harm. Don't you agree? If you think about it from Vang's point of view, you apologized for being on their land and just want to leave without any problems, then you have 8 people who just followed you on ATVs and confronted you again with hostility, they're angry and swearing at you calling you racial slurs, one of them just said that he was going to beat you up, and then you try to walk away but another person stepped in your way and blocked you from leaving. Also taking into account that you are smaller, surrounded in the woods and who knows how far from civilization. I'd bet that majority of the people would agree that the murderer was quite threatened. Seems that a case like this doesn't happen everyday contradicting your statement that this happens everyday to people of every race. Now, back to changes for the article. |
||
For the reaction part of the article: I suggest a change to describe the culture clash between communities of different ethnicity and hunters of different ethnicity . Such as Hmongs or ethnic minorities trespassing and hostile/malicious behaviors towards trespassers for example. Another culture clash would be that many in the community doesn't believe that race wasn't a factor and the Attorney General downplayed the racial angle in court but the Hmong community still felt that racism was a factor in the shooting. [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20050928&id=OEMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bEUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4587,6893526&hl=en] Another reaction to add is that bumper stickers were made and sold in shops saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and that [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6709956/ns/us_news-life/t/bumper-sticker-advocates-anti-hmong-violence/s][http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/2020507.html] Vang's home was burned down in a suspicious fire and it is speculated that it was arson because of the profane graffiti defacing Vang's home. |
For the reaction part of the article: I suggest a change to describe the culture clash between communities of different ethnicity and hunters of different ethnicity . Such as Hmongs or ethnic minorities trespassing and hostile/malicious behaviors towards trespassers for example. Another culture clash would be that many in the community doesn't believe that race wasn't a factor and the Attorney General downplayed the racial angle in court but the Hmong community still felt that racism was a factor in the shooting. [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20050928&id=OEMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bEUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4587,6893526&hl=en] Another reaction to add is that bumper stickers were made and sold in shops saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and that [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6709956/ns/us_news-life/t/bumper-sticker-advocates-anti-hmong-violence/s][http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/2020507.html] Vang's home was burned down in a suspicious fire and it is speculated that it was arson because of the profane graffiti defacing Vang's home. |
||
For the investigation section: It should be explained in the beginning of the section that after Vang apologized for being on their land and was leaving, the 8 victims pursued Vang on ATV's and confronted him again with a very heated atmosphere unlike the first confrontation. The facts after the heated second confrontation is what was in dispute that led to the shootings. " On the stand Hesebeck admitted Robert Crotteau had called Vang a 'Hmong a--hole." It should be added following that sentence that, Lauren Hesebeck shortly after the shooting told investigators that Robert Crotteau had threatened Vang that he was going to give Vang a beating, called Vang derogatory names tagged with Hmong, and Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from trying to walk away. [http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/09/13_kelleherb_vang/?refid=0][[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
For the investigation section: It should be explained in the beginning of the section that after Vang apologized for being on their land and was leaving, the 8 victims pursued Vang on ATV's and confronted him again with a very heated atmosphere unlike the first confrontation. The facts after the heated second confrontation is what was in dispute that led to the shootings. " On the stand Hesebeck admitted Robert Crotteau had called Vang a 'Hmong a--hole." It should be added following that sentence that, Lauren Hesebeck shortly after the shooting told investigators that Robert Crotteau had threatened Vang that he was going to give Vang a beating, called Vang derogatory names tagged with Hmong, and Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from trying to walk away. [http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/09/13_kelleherb_vang/?refid=0][[User:Lance616168|Lance616168]] ([[User talk:Lance616168|talk]]) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Lance616168}}, please propose '''''specific''''' changes to the article, not generic descriptions such as "''change to describe the culture clash''" as that doesn't provide specific changes (see [[Wikipedia:Edit requests]] for some general info on this type of proposal). |
|||
:Also, please read [[Wikipedia:Indentation]] for using indentation to continue a discussion. I have edited the indent formatting for the above discussion to make it clearer to new readers that this is a prolonged discussion. Cheers, [[User:Drcrazy102|Drcrazy102]] ([[User talk:Drcrazy102|talk]]) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
* '''Uninvolved editor''': '''''Comment'''''; {{u|Lance61618}}, please provide ''specific change'' requests, e.g. "Can we change 'xxxxx' to 'xx'''yyy''''?" That will help to make this a discussion about content rather than contributors as it is rapidly devolving into on both sides. I have seen no such requests listed above, only ''general content'' changes to the ''general article''. |
* '''Uninvolved editor''': '''''Comment'''''; {{u|Lance61618}}, please provide ''specific change'' requests, e.g. "Can we change 'xxxxx' to 'xx'''yyy''''?" That will help to make this a discussion about content rather than contributors as it is rapidly devolving into on both sides. I have seen no such requests listed above, only ''general content'' changes to the ''general article''. |
||
:: '''''Request''''': Please stop [[WP:WIKILAWYER|playing lawyers]] with Wiki policies, the both of you. I see a strong case of [[WP:BOOMERANG]] developing. Cheers, [[User:Drcrazy102|Drcrazy102]] ([[User talk:Drcrazy102|talk]]) 04:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
:: '''''Request''''': Please stop [[WP:WIKILAWYER|playing lawyers]] with Wiki policies, the both of you. I see a strong case of [[WP:BOOMERANG]] developing. Cheers, [[User:Drcrazy102|Drcrazy102]] ([[User talk:Drcrazy102|talk]]) 04:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:11, 15 October 2015
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest adding these important details to the article
Lauren Hesebeck told investigators days after the shooting that Robert Crotteau used profanity tagged with Hmong against Vang, told threats that he was going to beat Vang and that Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking him from leaving. However told a contradicting story in court, different from what Hesebeck told investigators. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/09/13_kelleherb_vang/?refid=0 Here is a link to the documentary that showed videos of the cross examination. Terry Willers and Lauren Hesebeck told their scenario that contradicts what they told investigators https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqvvtL-ggw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance616168 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Chai Vang's change of venue was denied
Peg Lautenschlager the attorney general took interest in the case and wanted to "personally" prosecute Vang herself. Before Lautenschlager's involvement in the case, in February 2004, Peg Lautenschlager was convicted of drunk driving with a blood alcohol content 50% over the legal limit just prior before the shooting occured. http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/1169977.html https://badgerherald.com/news/2004/02/25/attorney-general-lau/
For the aftermath: Chai Vang's home was burned down , with profanity graffiti against Vang. http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/2020507.html
Bumper stickers saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong were made and many people had it applied to their vehicle http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6709956/ns/us_news-life/t/bumper-sticker-advocates-anti-hmong-violence/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance616168 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
WilliamThweatt
Would you mind doing the editing on the article of Chai Vang, adding the important details to the article that wasn't included. This article is highly biased/ignorant, misleading others to be ignorant of the details of the tragedy. This negligence of details is very shameful.. Lance616168 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is founded on Five pillars and articles are written by consensus based on information provided in reliable mainstream sources. Undue weight is not given to less reliable sources nor to a minority of sources which offer details differing from multiple mainstream sources. Wikipedia is not a forum nor is it a place for people with obvious agendas to try to right any perceived injustice. According to the multiple reliable sources and the consensus of editors active on this article, all relevant details have been included. Please take some time to read and understand the numerous links I have provided in this response and familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and how it operates. Opinions (yours, mine, anybody's) are irrelevant. High quality reliable sources are all we are allowed to base articles on.
- You may also benefit from reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and especially Wikipedia's policy regarding writing about living persons, the latter of which is taken very seriously and applies to all areas of Wikipedia, even talk pages.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you aware of the neutral point of view rule? This article is in violation of that rule by failing to not make this article as fairly as possible with a neutral tone by not including the details that are in violation of "undue weight." Let me state the rules from the neutral point of view. And i quote from Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, " Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." This article is in violation of that rule. To your statement that " all relevant details have been included', It would seem that not all "relevant" details have been included in this article. It is irrelevant if the status of the source is "mainstream or a minority" because a fact is a fact regardless of the status of the source as long as it's truthful and reliable. I would have to disagree with the ruling of "undue" weight. Details are the facts of the case. It is wrong to just cite/base and write an article with the information from a "mainstream" source which would mislead readers to ignorance of the "truth."Lance616168 (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also I quote from the neutral rules against undue weight, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ALL significant viewpoints need to be fairly represented in this article which it clearly is not by the lack of details in this article concerning how the shooter was treated by the victims and the aftermath. These are very important details that wasn't written in the article which I suggest needs to be. Lance616168 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop ranting. You keep complaining the article "isn't fair", but you haven't pointed to any specifics. That's not how this works. You obviously have an agenda of making excuses for this convicted murderer. Nobody is going to read your rants or pay any attention to them. If you have specific changes you would like made to the article, this is the place to bring them up along with reliable sources that support the changes you would like made. Then a discussion will be had based on context, objectivity, reliability of sources, etc. (not on your idea of "fairness" or your personal crusade). Keep in mind that claims which differ from the preponderance of mainstream reliable sources would need strong, peer reviewed, very reputable sources, to even be considered. (Youtube, blogs, comment sections, personal commentaries etc. aren't reliable sources). Also things such as, for example a prosecutor's DUI or whether or not profanity was used, has no bearing on the subject of this article and is definitely neither an exculpatory excuse for murder nor evidence to support claims of an "unfair" trial. So don't expect such things to make it into the article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here we go. You and your assumptions. You are assuming that i am making "excuses" for this Chai Vang. Glad to know how you can remain ignorant. I am truthfully speaking for the greater good of this article to make it have a neutral tone without bias. Why don't you read Wikipedia's rule or neutrality. You would benefit from it since you dont seem to understand Wikipedia rules. You can see in the talk page of this article, there are a couple of editors who also feel that this article is biased. I already have pointed to specifics of details that should be included and that this article should be rewritten to maintain a neutral point of view. For example: for the aftermath, Vang's home was burned down as a sort of retaliation and result of the shooting and signs were made to Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong. These are important details that need to be in this article because of it's significance and impact of this case. I am not excusing murder but I am not also excusing racism/bullying either. You seem to be acknowledging racism and bullying as long as it isn't murder which means you have an agenda of keeping this a misleading biased article. I suggest again, that you need to make the appropriate changes to this article. Your biased and racist colors are starting to show. As for Peg Lautenschlager, since her name was mentioned and part of her tactic questions were briefly mentioned in this article that had no bearing on the subject in this article, a brief history on the Attorney General is pretty relevant in this article. I bet you an apology that the majority of the community would agree that this article is biased with a blend of racism. Lance616168 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, please stop ranting. And read No personal attacks. I will ignore this one time and choose to believe you haven't read the policy and just don't know any better. Next time you will be reported and risk being blocked (losing editing privileges). Discuss the content, not editors. Only "notable" subjects get Wikipedia articles. (See Wikipedia:Notability for the definition of "notability" used in Wikipedia's context) The subject of the article is only notable because he killed people and was convicted of murder. He isn't notable because his house caught on fire, nor is he notable because a member of the prosecution team had a DUI. He isn't notable because of racism or bullying or whatever other excuse you can dream up. Those details are irrelevant to this article. Stop trying to race bait and bring race into everything. There is nothing misleading in this article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Suggest a specific change with strong supporting sources or move on.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking of which.. I was attacked with your assumption of claims of having an "agenda" or to make excuses for this Chai Vang person and now with names such as race racebaiter dreaming of excuses. I suggest you to listen to yourself and learn not to personally attack me because you will be reported. But here's a response for you calling me a race baiter, take a look at the case. Race IS an issue in the case of Chai Vang. The fact that significant details were neglected just makes it bias and misleading because the readers aren't getting the correct information and that the article doesn't have a tone as fair as possible without bias from a neutral standpoint. For your information, not sure if you are aware of this but I have reported this article to the Neutral POV Noticeboard. Some have agreed that the appropiate changes needs to be made to this article. There are retrospective views that need to be included in the article in compliance with the neutral POV rule. [1][2][3] The documentary should be considered for an external link per WP:ELMAYBE
- The overall tone is biased, so a rewrite of the article with a neutral POV can surely fix that. Lance616168 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it so. There is nothing misleading in the article. A man killed people in the forest. That man was convicted of murder. End of story. Race is irrelevant. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on. This is a biographical article about a convicted murderer, not an exposition of race relations in the US. If you want to discuss racism we have appropriate articles such as Racism in the United States. In fact the Racism in the United States#Asian American subsection needs to be expanded and updated to include the experiences of Southeast Asians refugees. But race didn't cause this man to commit murder, nor did it cause him to be convicted. The fact that "racism" or "racist" things may have occurred tangential to the case is irrelevant to the scope of this biographical article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- "No matter how many times I say it." Well then, I'll keep saying it. "Significant" details of the shooting was left out making this a misleading biased article. Do you not understand that? You state that race is not relevant in this case however the fact is that Chai Vang was Hmong, the victims were White and that the victims called Vang slurs. Nothing you say can change those facts. The sources I referenced, most are from the news website itself. The facts are true so why don't you do some research on some of my suggestions to see if it is or not. Since it's true and the details are MAJOR, It cannot be left out of this case because it will make this article misleading and biased. Not only that, the article is in violation of the neutral POV which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. By your logic, since Chai Vang is a convicted murderer who killed 6 people in the woods , that is all we need to write in this article because it's " end of story " as stated by you. Let's REWRITE the article and all we need to write is, " Chai Vang, convicted murderer. Kills 6 Injured 2." Leave out the rest of the information concerning the case except Vang's background. However since this article wasn't written in that fashion, it is up to us as editors to provide the CORRECT details about the investigation, trial ect. Especially the correct SIGNIFICANT details. Lance616168 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- So? The murderer and his victims were from different ethnic backgrounds, so what? I haven't denied that, in fact, it is mentioned in the very first sentence of the article already. Racial slurs may have been used in a tense situation. So what? Nothing really unique to this case about that. Sadly, it happens every day to people of every race and yet, the offended parties manage to not kill 6 people every time it does. Racial issues just aren't a "significant" detail in this murder case. Suggest a specific change with strong relevant supporting sources (not blogs or other nonsense) or move on.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course you haven't denied that the murderer and the victims had different ethnicity. What you are denying is that racial issues wasn't a "significant" factor in this case. What's unique about this case was that the victims decided to pursue the murderer with 8 people on ATV's to confront him again with hostility and who knows what other malicious intent, call him names also saying his race, threaten to beat him and then block the murderer from leaving when he tried to walk away. That is false imprisonment, assault, harassment, hate crime and attempt of assault to do great bodily harm. Don't you agree? If you think about it from Vang's point of view, you apologized for being on their land and just want to leave without any problems, then you have 8 people who just followed you on ATVs and confronted you again with hostility, they're angry and swearing at you calling you racial slurs, one of them just said that he was going to beat you up, and then you try to walk away but another person stepped in your way and blocked you from leaving. Also taking into account that you are smaller, surrounded in the woods and who knows how far from civilization. I'd bet that majority of the people would agree that the murderer was quite threatened. Seems that a case like this doesn't happen everyday contradicting your statement that this happens everyday to people of every race. Now, back to changes for the article.
For the reaction part of the article: I suggest a change to describe the culture clash between communities of different ethnicity and hunters of different ethnicity . Such as Hmongs or ethnic minorities trespassing and hostile/malicious behaviors towards trespassers for example. Another culture clash would be that many in the community doesn't believe that race wasn't a factor and the Attorney General downplayed the racial angle in court but the Hmong community still felt that racism was a factor in the shooting. [4] Another reaction to add is that bumper stickers were made and sold in shops saying Save a Deer, Shoot a Hmong and that [5][6] Vang's home was burned down in a suspicious fire and it is speculated that it was arson because of the profane graffiti defacing Vang's home.
For the investigation section: It should be explained in the beginning of the section that after Vang apologized for being on their land and was leaving, the 8 victims pursued Vang on ATV's and confronted him again with a very heated atmosphere unlike the first confrontation. The facts after the heated second confrontation is what was in dispute that led to the shootings. " On the stand Hesebeck admitted Robert Crotteau had called Vang a 'Hmong a--hole." It should be added following that sentence that, Lauren Hesebeck shortly after the shooting told investigators that Robert Crotteau had threatened Vang that he was going to give Vang a beating, called Vang derogatory names tagged with Hmong, and Joey Crotteau stepped in Vang's way blocking Vang from trying to walk away. [7]Lance616168 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Lance616168, please propose specific changes to the article, not generic descriptions such as "change to describe the culture clash" as that doesn't provide specific changes (see Wikipedia:Edit requests for some general info on this type of proposal).
- Also, please read Wikipedia:Indentation for using indentation to continue a discussion. I have edited the indent formatting for the above discussion to make it clearer to new readers that this is a prolonged discussion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editor: Comment; Lance61618, please provide specific change requests, e.g. "Can we change 'xxxxx' to 'xxyyy'?" That will help to make this a discussion about content rather than contributors as it is rapidly devolving into on both sides. I have seen no such requests listed above, only general content changes to the general article.
- Request: Please stop playing lawyers with Wiki policies, the both of you. I see a strong case of WP:BOOMERANG developing. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)